Outsourcing in Academia: The Tufts Custodian's Struggle 25 Oct. 1998 Meeting of the Ethical Society of Boston Gary R. Goldstein It is a pleasure to be here and to be given the opportunity to present the story of the Tufts custodians to a wider audience. I'll begin with a chronology of the events at Tufts that have led to the present situation. I will indicate what the administration's actions have been throughout and connect their policies with the broader issue of how higher education is now a thrall to the corporate model of cost cutting and the bottom line. Chronology The story begins in the Summer of 1994. Until this time the custodians on all of the Tufts campuses were employees of Tufts University, managed by Tufts., and given all the benefits afforded Tufts' employees. Following a national trend, the administration privatized the custodial services. It contracted with UNICCO, a large national company to take over the custodial service management. Workers were offered their same salaries, but they lost their Tufts benefits, including tuition for their children at Tufts and the university pension plan. They were given assurances that their conditions of employment would remain substantially the same. Many of the workers accepted the contract. Of course there was uneasiness about this new arrangement, but for most workers there was a sense of loyalty and trust. Furthermore, the union, SEIU local 254, was looking after their interests. In the Summer 1997 the contract came up for renewal. While UNICCO negotiated with the workers and their union reps, Tufts simultaneously contracted with a new company, ISS to provide service at a lower cost. Obviously the lower cost would be achieved at the workers' expense. 110 custodial workers were dismissed by the new company. Many of these people were long term employees with strong commitment to the institution and devotion to their work. Two that I know were very near retirement age. These workers are a diverse group of both men and women; some immigrants, some Spanish or Portuguese speaking , some Haitians. Their treatment by Tufts has been deplorable. Next they were offered to be rehired by ISS under a new contract. The contract gave those workers who had been employed before the privatization 25% to 30% lower wages and it required all to accept further reductions of benefits, sick days and vacation time. Furthermore, ISS could place them at any site where it had service contracts. This contract had to be voted on by the union members, but ISS brought in 150 new workers. The vote was conducted at Tufts, overseen by Tufts police and the workers were kept away from the new ISS group, many of whom, it would seem, were given union membership for the occasion. This move, legally questionable, allowed the ISS contract to be accepted with the union's blessing. Most of the former workers refused to accept the terms of the contract. They were locked out. Their union was unresponsive. When some of them tried to distribute leaflets on campus to alert the community of these events they were arrested and charged with trespassing. In Sept.and Oct.97 the former custodians started to picket regularly. Many of the workers were Somerville and Medford residents and found sympathetic citizens and officials in those communities to add their voices to the call for Tufts to reconsider its actions. Faculty, students and staff joined in. To bring the situation directly to the administration, several faculty members had a meeting with the pres. and the vice pres. for operations. We made a case for rehiring these workers at their former wages based on the ethical, humane treatment they deserved, but the administrators stood firm. They claimed the workers had been inefficient for years (although the university, when it was managing the custodians, had no such complaints, nor did the UNICCO managers). They claimed that the cost savings were substantial and necessary. We have since determined that those savings almost could have been matched by the gradual process of attrition, with the concomitant maintenance of good will. Furthermore we were told that other Tufts workers were being considered for privatization. In the meantime a Faculty/Staff petition was sent to Pres.DiBiaggio with 150 signatures, which included about 1/3 of the Arts and Sciences faculty. This effort was joined by an A&S faculty resolution calling for the rehiring of the custodians. Weekly pickets in front of Ballou Hall, the administration building, began. Leaflets were distributed on Parents Weekend. Many parents, alums and concerned community members wrote letters to the Pres. calling for humane action. Mayor Capuono, several members of the Somerville Board of Aldermen, state reps Pat Jehlen and Tony Giglio called on Tufts to rehire its long term workers. In Nov. a Forum was held with faculty, staff, Somerville state rep. Pat Jehlen, Elaine Bernard (Harvard project on labor), custodians and students. Many of the workers, we were told then, were living on unemployment benefits and having a hard time meeting their financial obligations. A fund for Tufts Workers was set up and consideration of legal action was begun. Through Dec.97 the weekly group picketing continued, although the cold weather was decreasing participation. The custodians themselves maintained daily picketing throughout. By this time the story had been covered by the Somerville newspapers, the Boston Globe, the Chronicle of Higher Education and WBUR's Morning Edition. Although perturbed by the negative publicity, the administration made no efforts to communicate with the former custodians. Aware that many of the workers were in need of some of life's essentials, in Jan.98 a Food drive began on campus. Tables were set up regularly throughout the campus and canned food and money were collected and sent to the Somerville, Medford and Malden food pantries. Lawyers were contacted for the custodians and the legal issues were explored. In Mar. three law suits were brought by the custodians against Tufts, UNICCO, ISS and the local of the union for age discrimination and violation of proper labor practices in the contract vote. At this time, given the limited resources available to the custodians and their faculty/staff supporters, only the suit before the Mass. Commission on Discrimination is being pursued. On Apr.16, 98 Rep. Joseph Kennedy was invited to hold an open meeting with the former custodians and their supporters. The meeting was very successful. The congressman engaged in thoughtful dialog about what courses of action would be most effective and feasible. And he agreed to work with local elected officials in urging the administration to negotiate with the former workers. Then on May 15,98 - Reps. Joseph Kennedy and Edward Markey and Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry wrote a letter to Pres. DiBiaggio calling for the administration to "sit down with these workers" to negotiate some settlement. Tufts did not respond. In further action, on May 16,98, information packets were given to alums at their reunion. On May 17,98, Tufts Graduation, 2000 fliers were distributed to attendees and 70% of faculty members in the processional wore yellow buttons in support of rehiring the custodians. Graduation speaker Garry Trudeau mentioned the issue of Tufts' treatment of its workers in his address. Throughout Jun. 98 fundraising continued for legal expenses. The suit with MCAD continued, although Tufts had not responded to requests for information. The Kennedy letter was circulated to the Trustees, some of whom had been sympathetic. The Candidates for the 8th Congressional District seat had been asked to endorse that letter and 3 of them did that. An article about the custodian issue was published in the Progressive. The suit before the Mass. Comm. Against Discrimination (MCAD) is not moving, in spite of efforts by several supporters. Over the summer 1998 a survey was sent to 49 of the former custodians for whom we had addresses. Their unemployment benefits ended in the spring, so we were concerned about their present circumstances. Eighteen replied (not a bad return for surveys). We know now that at least 8 were still unemployed. One had been denied work because he had been one of the former Tufts workers (therefore a trouble maker?). Three lost their homes by eviction or foreclosure. Fifteen were without health insurance and 4 experienced serious illness in their family. Eleven reported the inability to obtain sufficient food (having been laid off by a university known for its nutrition school). Thirteen reported using food pantries or soup kitchens. We faculty, students and staff continue to plead with the administration to help these people in some way - either by hiring them in other jobs as they become available, providing them with some assistance, offering them retraining, or renegotiating with the service company to rehire the workers who remain unemployed. There is no response. Instead our pres. continues to relate his stories of how he, a child of immigrant parents, was able to rise up to his exalted position in this land of opportunity, while the immigrant workers once in his employ are now without a living wage. Our community relations are at an all time low while Tufts urges its students to volunteer for community outreach organizations. For many of us, the hypocrisy is intolerable. A university that stands for humane values, dignity and justice can not treat its workers as disposable if it is to be respected. Nor can that university teach those values to its students while behaving oppositely. The behavior of the Tufts Administration is an echo of an alarming development, the corporatization of academia. Many examples now exist of universities that have "outsourced" various groups of support staff. Syracuse U. just had a university wide strike over its attempt to downgrade its 700 library, dining and janitorial service employees with part time workers and non-union staff. With considerable acrimony that conflict was settled, fortunately, although faculty, staff and students were threatened with reprisals while they supported the workers. Penn, Stanford, Long Island U, Yale and many state universities have experienced similar struggles. And the process doesn't stop with support staff. There is an undeniable trend toward replacing full time, tenure track faculty members with part time instructors. According to the latest AAUP estimates 43% of faculty are part time and more than 50% are non-tenure track. From Minnesota to Massachusetts the concept of tenure is under attack. The future of higher education in the US is in jeopardy as this bottom line mentality drives educational decisions. Does anyone believe that the greatest cost savings will produce the best education? Thinking of students as widgets tooled on an assembly line with increasing efficiency, greater productivity, and the maximization of shareholders' profits is about as sensible as making employees of a nutrition school go hungry. And that is the problem. ___________________________________________ Subject: Text of Letter from US Representatives and Senators May 15, 1998 Dear Dr. DiBiaggio, We are writing to express our deep concern about more than 100 Tufts University custodial workers who lost their jobs last summer. Most of these custodians remain without work. As you know, each of us has proudly supported and represented Tufts University over the years. We applaud its focus on civic leadership, it strong commitment to the communities that we represent, and its leadership in the global community. With this in mind, we consider the fate of the former Tufts custodians, many of whom served the University well for a number of years and now find themselves unable to find other work. We know you, too, must share our concern about their plight, and the fact that a number of them are reported to be relying on emergency food programs to make ends meet for their families. This situation serves the interest of neither Tufts University nor the custodians. We write to urge you to direct appropriate University officials to sit down with these custodians to develop plans to alleviate the current situation. We hope that you will consider such options as rehiring, job training, and severance packages commensurate with the standards of Tufts University. While we do not wish to involve ourselves with the details of negotiations, we do believe that all parties should sit down together to try to resolve this matter. We believe that all institutions hold moral and civic responsibilities toward their workers. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Joseph P. Kennedy II, Member of Congress Edward J. Markey, Member of Congress Edward M. Kennedy, United States Senator John F. Kerry, United States Senator ___________________________________________________ JUSTICE FOR TUFTS CUSTODIANS: An Open Letter to President DiBiaggio On July 30th, 1997, Tufts University transferred its cleaning contract from UNICCO to ISS. One hundred and ten custodians, including many long-term Tufts employees, were summarily dismissed. The custodians were told that they could reapply for employment with ISS, but long-term employees (working at Tufts prior to 1994) would have to take a pay cut from $12.35 per hour to $9.50. All custodial employees would also no longer be guaranteed work at Tufts, but could be assigned to any ISS site. On August 19, a contract deal between ISS and Service Employees International Union Local 254 was announced, including an offer of severance pay for long-term workers. This contract was approved at an election of dubious legality, in which substitute workers were bused in under police escort and outvoted long-term Tufts employees. Custodians involved in bargaining had not been told that substitute workers would be included in the vote. The election took place on Tufts property, at Anderson Hall, and Tufts police were involved in barring long-term Tufts employees from talking to substitute workers being escorted in to vote. Long-term Tufts employees have also been arrested and charged with trespassing for distributing leaflets on campus. We find this ethically troubling. A group of long-term workers, dedicated members of the Tufts "family", some with decades of service, have been summarily dismissed -- causing serious hardship especially for older workers with families and mortgages or other financial commitments. Despite the statement by John Roberto, Vice President for Operations, that "Tufts University is not a party to the dispute nor participating in the negotiations," it is clear that Tufts has a moral (and possibly legal) responsibility for this harsh treatment of its long-time workers. Somerville and Medford elected officials, including Somerville Mayor Capuano and members of the Board of Aldermen, Somerville State Representative Pat Jehlen, and Medford State Representative Tony Giglio have called on Tufts to protect the interests of its long term workers. We, the undersigned faculty and staff members, call on the university to direct its contractor to renegotiate the contract, and to offer terms at least comparable to the former contract with custodians working at Tufts, including "grandfathering" terms for long-term employees. ** As of Nov.97 150 Tufts faculty and staff (107 faculty and 43 staff) signed this open letter. This letter was also endorsed by the Executive Committee of the Tufts chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). ** The Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Faculty of the School of Nutrition endorsed resolutions similar to the letter. ______________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 3, 1997 To: The Medford Transcript The Medford Mercury The Somerville Journal The Tufts Daily We were surprised to learn that President DiBiaggio told the faculty this week that the Somerville and Medford communities are no longer concerned about the laidoff custodians. We would like to assure the Tufts community that we continue in strong support of the custodians in their desire to regain their jobs at their previous rate of pay. We are eager to hear suggestions of how we might most usefully demonstrate that support. As we gave thanks last weekend for the plenty which most Americans enjoy, we could not ignore recent reports of increased numbers of working families applying to food kitchens because of low wages. A study by the Community Action Agencies just told us that 18% of Massachusetts families in poverty are headed by a full-time worker. The trend of reducing costs by forcing the lowest-paid workers to take pay cuts, while raising the pay of executives, is dividing American society. Tufts' actions -- in contracting out, eliminating worker security and cutting wages for people who had worked for the University for decades -- illustrate, and contribute to, this trend. Tufts benefits from its location in Somerville and Medford, its tax-free status, and significant government aid. Our community expects higher standards of behavior from such neighbors. We also note the important leadership of Tufts faculty and staff in researching issues of hunger and poverty, and hope that the administration will consider that information in forming its own policies. We are told that there has been more outrage over the locking out of dogs than over the locking out of the custodians. Please be assured that, while we all love dogs, we consider the opportunity of families to support themselves to be among our highest priorities. Michael E. Capuano, Mayor, City of Somerville Stanley M. Koty, President, Somerville Board of Aldermen Charles E. Shannon, Jr., State Senator, 2nd Middlesex District* Vincent P. Ciampa, State Representative, 37th Middlesex District* Anthony P. Giglio, State Representative, 38th Middlesex District* Patricia D. Jehlen, State Representative, 30th Middlesex District* J. James Marzilli, State Representative, 25th Middlesex District* Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., State Representative, 29th Middlesex District* *Each represents Medford and/or Somerville in the Massachusetts Legislature _____________________________________________________ TO: ALL TUFTS FACULTY FROM: Professors J.Larry Brown, Gary R.Goldstein and Steven P.Marrone SUBJ: Hunger Among Families of Former Tufts Custodians We write to inform you of a campus-wide food drive which will get underway the first of February, in support of the former Tufts University custodians and their families. We hope that all faculty will support this initiative. We will be joined by Tufts students and staff who are being invited to support this cause as well. As you may know, Tufts University recently signed a new contract for custodial services with a private vendor. This led to the dismissal of more than 100 former custodians, many of whom had put in a decade or more of service to Tufts. This action has led to a great deal of concern on the part of the Tufts community, as well as outside the University itself. While there are varying viewpoints about this matter, perhaps everyone can agree that no former Tufts employees should be going hungry as a result of university actions. Yet a number of custodians and their families are going hungry. Most of them are subsisting on unemployment insurance while they search for work. Typically their weekly income is just over $200, hardly enough to feed a family! Moreover, a number of the families are requesting bags of groceries from emergency food organizations, and nearly two dozen of our former custodians have told Tufts faculty that they are unable to provide an adequate food supply for their families. Starting in early February, a campus food drive will begin, with canned foods and money being collected at tables at several sites: outside Ballou Hall (quad side), the Campus Center, and the two main student dining halls. We urge you to support this drive. All money and food will be given to emergency food pantries in Somerville and Malden, which have promised to service the custodians and their families. This is a unique opportunity for Tufts University faculty to help make a difference in the lives of families who are going hungry. Please join us in doing so. For further information call Corey Zimmerman at ext. 3956 or Gary Goldstein at ext. 3591.